L2 WRITING AND L2 WRITTEN FEEDBACK IN UPPER SECONDARY SCHOOLS AS EXPERIENCED BY TEACHERS
Master’s thesis Angeliki Manousou
University of Jyväskylä
Department of Languages
English
November 2015
JYVÄSKYLÄNYLIOPISTO
Tiedekunta – Faculty
FACULTY OF HUMANITIES
Laitos – Department
DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGES
Tekijä – Author
ANGELIKI MANOUSOU
Työn nimi – Title
L2 WRITING AND L2 WRITTEN FEEDBACK IN UPPER SECONDARY SCHOOLS AS EXPERIENCED BY TEACHERS
Oppiaine – Subject
ENGLISH
Työn laji – Level
MASTER’S THESIS
Aika – Month and year
NOVEMBER 2015
Sivumäärä – Number of pages
123 PAGES
Tiivistelmä – Abstract
L2 written feedback is a multi-faceted issue and this is the reason behind the big number of studies that have been conducted on it. However, the majority of studies deal with learners’
opinions of teachers’ feedback or several types of feedback and their advantages and
disadvantages. There are no studies that could have addressed teachers’ opinions of their L2 written feedback.
This study attempts to describe how L2 teachers view their written feedback on learners’ essays.
In particular, it attempts to describe whether L2 writing is important nowadays and what text types learners produce. Moreover, it attempts to describe some definitions of feedback, forms of feedback, the effectiveness of feedback and whether feedback needs to be written in a milder way. Additionally, it attempts to describe learners’ responsibility for processing teachers’
feedback, the focus of feedback, its handling in class and whether teachers follow written guidelines when giving feedback.
The data includes six recorded interviews of L2 teachers in upper secondary schools in Finland and in Greece. In particular, three teachers are Finnish and three teachers are Greek.
The results of this study reveal that L2 teachers have their own reasons for making choices when giving feedback. They reflect and give explanations on their choices and they recognise their errors when giving feedback. In general, they have their own opinion about how feedback should be given to learners.
Asiasanat – Keywords L2 writing, L2 written feedback
Säilytyspaikka – Depository JYX
Muita tietoja – Additional information
1 INTRODUCTION ... 4
2 L2 WRITING ... 5
2.1 The importance of L2 writing ...6
2.2 Writing ability ...7
2.3 Previous theories on the writing process ...9
2.4 A study on the age factor in L2 writing ... 13
2.5 Written text types/genres in L2 writing ... 15
2.6 Social and cultural aspects of writing ... 16
2.7 Several foci on writing texts in L2 writing ... 19
3 WRITTEN FEEDBACK IN L2 CLASSROOMS ... 22
3.1 The effectiveness of L2 written feedback ... 22
3.2 Definitions of writing and feedback ... 24
3.3 Forms of teacher’s written feedback ... 27
3.4 Mitigation strategies ... 30
3.5 Theoretical models/approaches affecting feedback ... 32
3.6 Positive and negative feedback ... 34
3.7 Factors that make feedback effective ... 37
3.8 Focus of teachers’ written feedback in L2 writing ... 42
4 STUDIES RELEVANT TO FEEDBACK ... 44
5 AIM OF THIS STUDY ... 52
5.1 Motivation of this study ... 52
5.2 Research questions ... 53
6 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ... 54
6.1 Reasons for methodological choices ... 54
6.1.2 Interviews ... 55
6.1.3 Questionnaires ... 57
6.1.4 Observations ... 58
6.1.5 The final choice of an interview for this study ... 59
6.2 Participants ... 60
6.3 Data collection ... 61
6.4 Content analysis ... 63
6.5 Transcribing and analysing the data of this study ... 65
7 FINDINGS ... 67
7.1 The importance of teaching and learning L2 writing ... 67
7.2 Text types that learners produce ... 72
7.3 Defining written feedback ... 76
7.4 Forms of written feedback ... 81
7.5 Effectiveness of L2 written feedback ... 86
7.6 Making written feedback milder ... 90
7.7 Learners’ responsibility for processing written feedback ... 94
7.8 Focus of written feedback ... 98
7.9 The handling of feedback in class ... 103
7.10 Following written guidelines when giving feedback ... 106
8 DISCUSSION ... 109
9 CONCLUSION ... 116
REFERENCES ... 120
Appendix 1: Theme interview questions ... 123
1 INTRODUCTION
L2 writing and L2 written feedback are two necessary actions in a classroom. In other words, L2 writing is the necessary prerequisite for teachers’ written feedback to follow. L2 writing is the process of writing a text in an organised way in English so that the text is understood by readers. L2 written feedback describes teachers’ English corrections in writing and comments on learners’ texts. As a result, it is apparent that both learners and teachers have to cooperate since learners are responsible for L2 writing whereas teachers are responsible for L2 written feedback. However, this study deals only with the teachers’ perspective on both issues.
L2 written feedback has been studied quite a lot. On the one hand, a study by Ellis (2009) describes different types of written feedback that can be used for correcting learners’ texts. Accordingly, the choice of the type of feedback influences its effectiveness. Another study by Lunt and Curran (2010) focuses on the comparison between written feedback and electronic audio feedback attempting to show the benefits of the electronic audio feedback over the traditional written feedback .Yet, another study by Weaver (2006) describes learners’ beliefs about teachers’ written feedback highlighting the pros and cons that learners report about it. However, none of the above-mentioned studies describes how teachers view their written feedback.
They either deal with the learners’ beliefs or they deal with types of written feedback and their advantages or disadvantages.
On the other hand, there are studies which focus on the teachers’ roles and practices regarding L2 written feedback. One such study by Furneaux, Paran and Fairfax (2007) attempts to discover the roles that teachers assume when they correct learners’ texts.
Accordingly, teachers take on either the role of the provider or that of the initiator.
Another study by Lee (2008) deals with the feedback practices of L2 teachers in Hong Kong secondary schools and whether they follow the school principles or whether they get any written guidelines for giving feedback. Accordingly, the results show that the Hong Kong teachers do not follow the school principles and they are not given any written guidelines for giving feedback. Finally, a third study by Lee (2011) provides alternative ways of giving written feedback making teachers’ job easier and feedback more effective.
This study attempts to find out teachers’ opinions on L2 writing and L2 written feedback. In other words, this study attempts to find out how teachers of English view their written feedback and what they think about it. Six L2 teachers were interviewed in order to discover their opinion of the importance of teaching and learning L2 writing nowadays , text types that learners produce, defining written feedback, forms of written feedback, effectiveness of L2 written feedback and making written
feedback milder. Moreover, the six interviews helped in discovering their opinion of learners’ responsibility for processing written feedback, focus of written feedback, the handling of feedback in class and following written guidelines when giving feedback.
This study begins with three background chapters. Chapter 2 focuses on issues concerning L2 writing. Chapter 3 focuses on issues regarding L2 written feedback.
Chapter 4 reviews all the studies focusing on L2 written feedback. Three studies are reviewed. All these studies attempt to find out teachers’ feedback practices in secondary schools. In other words, they deal with feedback from the teachers’
perspective. Chapter 5 focuses on the motivation of this study and its aims. Chapter 6 focuses on the data collection and methodology of this study. Chapter 7 analyses the findings of this study. Chapter 8 discusses the findings in relation to the background literature and chapter 9 describes the advantages of this study and it offers suggestions for future improvement.
First, there is a focus on the importance of L2 writing nowadays.
2 L2 WRITING
This chapter focuses on specific issues concerning L2 writing such as the importance of teaching and learning L2 writing, what writing ability is and the situations in which people need to write and some theories on the writing process. Moreover, it includes a study on the age factor in L2 writing, information about the several text types
produced in L2 writing, the social and cultural aspects of writing and last the different foci that there are when writing in L2.
2.1 The importance of L2 writing
The ability and the knowledge to write effectively are considered very important nowadays not only in the globalised world but also in L2 education (Weigle 2002: 1).
Therefore, instruction in writing has become increasingly important in L2 classrooms as well. As technology and transportation develop, there is a demand for different nations to come in contact and interact with each other (Weigle 2002: 1). Under these new conditions, the demand and need for communication across languages and cultures become even more essential. As a consequence, the ability to speak and write an L2 is a very significant skill for educational, business and personal reasons.
Additionally, writing is very important in L2 classrooms. Therefore, it is an important part of the communicative language teaching where language is seen as a system of communication rather than an object to be studied. In other words, writing is not used to reinforce repetitions of grammar and vocabulary in modern L2 classrooms but rather it is an important enterprise in and of itself.
Learning how to write is a quite demanding and challenging aspect of L2 learning (Hyland 2003: xiii). Learning how to write is very difficult not only for L2 learners but also for native speakers of English. In other words, being a native speaker of English does not automatically mean that this person knows how to write effectively.
This means that knowing how to write effectively requires a lot of continuous and specialised instruction for both native speakers and L2 learners of English.
Furthermore, it is not only the learning of the writing skill that is important but also its teaching (Hyland 2003: xiii). In other words, teaching writing plays a very significant role in the field of L2 teaching, a role that is much more important than it was 20 or 30 years ago.
There are two reasons for the importance of learning and teaching writing (Hyland 2003: xiii). Firstly, knowing how to write is crucial for learners’ success in the 21st century. The global digital network is the main communicative channel of many young people and the ability to communicate with others and exchange ideas and information is entirely dependent on good writing skills. In other words, learning how to write effectively is more demanding than ever in today’s world. Writing has turned into one of the most necessary process skills in the modern world that is characterized by text and numerical data. Second, there is a big interest in the increase of
knowledge about the nature of written texts and the writing processes behind them in the field of applied linguistics. Many scholars from several fields such as composition studies, L2 writing, genre theory and contrastive rhetoric have shown their interest in writing. As a consequence, there is an active interest nowadays to create new theories about writing as well as new approaches to the teaching of writing in L2 classrooms combining the recent theoretical background with the findings from empirical studies.
Shifting the focus on teachers, the ability to teach writing effectively is very crucial for an L2 teacher (Hyland 2003: xv). Since it has been mentioned that learning how to write effectively is one of the most important skills that learners need to develop, a well-trained teacher needs to know how to teach writing to them. Moreover, there is an increase in the interest in L2 writing and in the ways to teach it more effectively over the last ten years.
A teacher can be both effective and strong in his/her teaching of writing (Hyland 2003: xv). On the one hand, an effective teacher is informed before he/she makes decisions about how to carry out the lesson and about the methods, materials and procedures he/she wishes to use in the classroom. This information derives from the teacher’s knowledge of the recent practices in his/her field. On the other hand, a teacher can be strong as well. After being informed of all the recent practices and trends in his/her field, he/she ought to reflect on their appropriateness and on whether he/she should adopt them in the classroom. In other words, the reflection process expects the teacher to know how to relate the classroom activities to relevant current theory and research (Hyland 2003: xv).
The next section focuses on what writing ability is, whether and how it can be defined and what the situations are in which writing takes place and the purposes for writing.
2.2 Writing ability
One important aspect of writing is the writing ability that people need to possess before they start writing (Weigle 2002: 3). Therefore, an attempt is needed to define what writing ability is (Weigle 2002: 3). However, this is a rather difficult task (Purves 1992, Camp 1993, White 1995, as quoted by Weigle 2002: 3). It has been pointed out that writing has many different uses depending on the situations in which it takes place and on the people who produce texts (Purves 1992, Camp 1993, White
1995, as quoted by Weigle 2002: 3). In other words, there are several different situations and people who can write texts having different purposes in their mind. As a result, no uniform definition can be provided (Purves 1992, Camp 1993, White 1995, as quoted by Weigle 2002: 3).
One definition is related to the difference between the ability of the stenographer to write down the exact words that somebody else reads for him/her and another
definition is related to the ability to write a persuasive argument (Weigle 2002: 3). In other words, both the purposes and the situations are different in both definitions. This is what makes the writing ability not easily definable. Another example is that for the L2 learners, learning to write can range from mastering the Chinese characters to writing a PhD dissertation (Weigle 2002: 4).Thus, it is more useful to find out the situations in which people learn and use L2 writing and the kinds of writing they produce instead of trying to define accurately what the writing ability is (Weigle 2002: 4).
Additionally, there are five main groups of L2 learners (Weigle 2002: 5-7). The first group consists of minority children who study the majority language at school.
However, the majority language is not used at home and these children have to learn to write and use this language in order to pass their subjects at school and succeed in their working life later on. The second group includes children who already speak and write the majority language but they attend immersion programs at school. In other words, they learn an L2 at school. For this group, learning the L2 can improve their marks at school but it is not learnt for survival purposes as in the first group.
The third group includes adult immigrants who need to learn how to write the majority language in order to function in their workplace. These immigrants may or may not be literate in their native language. The fourth group refers to adults who have gone to another country to study on an academic level and get a degree. The writing needs of these learners are very sophisticated because they are already highly educated in their native language. The last group comprises of majority language learners who study an L2 to satisfy their personal interest, their work place demands or their educational development. In contrast with the previous group of adults, this one does not seem to have an absolute need to write in the L2. Therefore, their writing will be simpler and less complicated.
To sum up, the different groups of learners are characterized by different age,
education levels and needs for writing in and outside the classroom (Weigle 2002: 7).
For example, somebody who learns English as an L2 will need to develop his/her writing ability more than somebody who learns Russian (Weigle 2002: 7). In other words, the first one has more real needs to write in English since English is
recognized as the language of communication in our world. Therefore, the writing ability is not something that can be defined but it rather depends on several different factors such as the writing situation and the purpose of writing.
The next section emphasises some models of the writing process that learners may follow when they produce texts starting with the model proposed by Hayes and Flower and continuing to the more updated model by Hayes.
2.3 Previous theories on the writing process
One of the first models to describe the writing process is that proposed by Hayes and Flower in 1980 (Hayes and Flower 1980, as quoted by Weigle 2002: 23). According to this model, Hayes and Flower define certain factors that a learner keeps in his/her mind when writing. These factors seem to influence the writing process as well (Weigle 2002: 23). All these factors are related to the task environment and they refer to the writing essay, to the piece of writing that has been written so far and to the learner’s long-term memory. Additionally, they include the knowledge of the topic and of the audience and the learner’s stored writing plans (Weigle 2002: 23). The task environment includes also several cognitive processes such as planning, translating thought into text and revising. One basic and important idea proposed in this model is the fact that the writing process is not linear but recursive. In other words, the
instruction of writing is more important and effective than the provision of models of writing that the learner can be asked to follow when composing his/her own writing (Weigle 2002: 23-24).
Later in 1996, Hayes decides to expand his model on the writing process (Hayes 1996, as quoted by Weigle 2002: 24). The new model of writing includes two main parts. The first is the task environment and the second is the individual. In other words, the task environment is not sufficient to explain the writing process on its own but the individual plays an important role as well. Accordingly, the task environment is divided into the social and the physical environment. On the one hand, the social
environment refers to the real or imagined audience for somebody’s writing and to the people who helped in the writing process, too. On the other hand, the physical
environment refers to the piece of writing that has been written so far and the
composing medium that has been used to produce this writing (Weigle 2002: 24-25).
For instance, it can be written by hand using a pen or a pencil or at a computer using word processing (Weigle 2002: 25). The composing medium has been added as part of this model because of the technological development that has taken place. This technological advancement has influenced both the cognitive and social aspects of writing and this is the reason for its inclusion in the model (Weigle 2002: 25).
However, Hayes prefers to focus more on the second main part of the model, that is, on the individual rather than on the task environment (Hayes 1996, as quoted by Weigle 2002: 25). The individual aspects of writing include relations among four different parts: working memory, motivation and affect, cognitive processes and long- term memory of the learner (Weigle 2002: 25). Accordingly, the working memory consists of the phonological memory which stores verbal information such as speech, the visual-spatial memory which stores visual or spatial information such as written words or graphs and the semantic memory which stores conceptual information.
Another individual aspect of writing that plays an important role in the writing process is the learner’s motivation and affect (Weigle 2002: 25). In other words, the learner’s goals, predispositions, beliefs and attitudes and cost/benefit estimates can affect the way the learner writes and the effort he/she is going to invest in the writing task (Weigle 2002: 25). For instance, it has been suggested that the learner’s beliefs and ideas about the inherent nature of the writing ability can affect his/her writing process. In other words, when a learner believes that writing successfully is an innate ability, he/she will not pay attention to his/her writing because he/she thinks that in any case he/she is not a writer. Similarly, when a learner believes that writing
successfully is a result of effort, he/she will try hard to write well (Weigle 2002: 25).
The cognitive processes that a learner follows in the Hayes model refer to text
interpretation, reflection and text production (Hayes 1996, as quoted by Weigle 2002:
25). Text interpretation happens when the learner interprets what is written in a text.
In other words, text interpretation is the process during which the learner creates internal representations from the linguistic and graphic input (Weigle 2002: 25).
Reflection is the process of re-thinking of the text interpretation. In other words, during reflection, the learner creates new internal representations from the already existing internal representations. Text production is the new text that the learner creates. In other words, it is the new linguistic or graphic output which is produced from internal representations (Weigle 2002: 26).
Before Hayes continues with the last individual aspect of writing, that is, the long- term memory, he mentions three kinds of reading that are crucial for the writing process (Hayes 1996, as quoted by Weigle 2002: 26-27). These three kinds of reading are discussed in this part of the model because reading is a cognitive process
happening in the learner’s mind and because, as it was mentioned, reading can affect writing. The first type of reading is reading to evaluate a text. This means that the learner reads his/her piece of writing with a critical eye and tries to find errors and problems and also potential solutions to them. For example, while checking the text, the learner may apply grammar knowledge, decoding words or he/she may consider the audience’s needs. Accordingly, the less good writers prefer to correct local errors that relate mainly to grammar, spelling and punctuation errors rather than correct global errors that relate to the meaning and the organisation of the text. This may happen because the learner may not have good reading skills or because he/she may not have sufficient working memory to focus both on local and global errors. Another reason may be the fact that the learner may not be aware of the need to pay attention to global errors.
The other two kinds of reading are reading source texts and reading instructions (Weigle 2002: 27-28). The ability to read a source text effectively and understand what it means affects the learner’s writing. In other words, if the learner misinterprets the information of the source text, he/she will not be able to make right use of them in his/her own writing. The same principle applies to the cognitive process of reading instructions. If the learner misunderstands the instructions, he/she will not be able to complete the writing task accurately and effectively.
The final individual aspect of writing that is important to the writing process is the learner’s long-term memory (Weigle 2002: 28). In this type of memory, information and knowledge relevant to the task are stored. This information includes task
schemas, topic knowledge, audience knowledge, genre knowledge and linguistic
knowledge. At first, task schemas refer to information relevant to the task aims, the processes that are required to accomplish the task, the order of these processes and the way to evaluate the success of the task. Topic knowledge implies that the learner needs to know what he/she is going to write about. Knowledge of the audience refers to cultural and social issues, mainly the audience of the learner’s writing, and genre knowledge refers to the socially and culturally appropriate forms that writing takes in particular situations. Last, the linguistic knowledge includes information about the linguistic resources that a learner needs to possess in order to write.
However, Hayes’ model overlooks two important factors (Hayes 1996, as quoted by Weigle 2002: 28-29). First of all, it does not mention the different situations in which writing can take place. This lack can be filled by Grabe’s and Kaplan’s (1996) model of writing where the task environment includes the participants, the setting, the task, the text and the topic. One example of the setting can be the classroom, the library or even a computer centre and an example of the task can be lecture notes, letters or reports. The second problem in Hayes’ model is that it does not pay attention to the learner’s linguistic knowledge. The same model proposed by Grabe and Kaplan (1996) categorises language knowledge into three types: linguistic knowledge referring to the structures of the language, sociolinguistic knowledge referring to the ways the language is used appropriately in certain situations and discourse knowledge referring to the ways a text can be cohesive (Grabe and Kaplan 1996, as quoted by Weigle 2002: 29).
In conclusion, the model of writing proposed by Hayes is important because it describes the various factors that influence the writing process particularly those that are internal to the learner such as the cognitive processes and the long-term memory (Weigle 2002: 24,29). It is also important because it provides challenges in the L2 written feedback and assessment. In other words, the way learners think of all the above mentioned factors when they write a text can influence the teacher’s assessment and feedback.
The next section focuses on a study that examines the factor of age and how this affects L2 writing.
2.4 A study on the age factor in L2 writing
There has been a lot of debate about the role of age in L2 learning and the particular study focuses on the same factor using the Barcelona Age Factor project (BAF) that started in 1995 at the University of Barcelona (Celaya and Navés 2009: 130-131).
This project has three main aims. First, it tries to find out whether teaching English at a younger age results in better learning. Nowadays, it is common for most European countries to start teaching English between the ages of seven and nine instead of 11 or 12 as it used to be. It is also popular in some countries to teach English in nursery schools. Second, it tries to find the best instruments for measuring the learners’
written attainment and language and third, it tries to examine the lexical transfer from the L1 in multilingual settings dealing with the analysis of cross-linguistic influence.
The participants in this project were Spanish learners of English from different public schools in Barcelona and they were all Catalan-Spanish bilinguals (Celaya and Navés 2009: 134-137). The early starters (ES) began learning English at the age of eight in grade three and the late starters (LS) began learning English at the age of 11 in grade six. Both groups of learners attended English only at school and as they grew up in age and grade the amount of instruction increased as well. In the end, the late starters (LS) received more intensive instruction so that it was the same as that of the early starters. Moreover, there was a third group of more proficient learners who received instruction in English outside school.
The data consisted of a written composition that the learners had to write in 15 minutes on introducing themselves at the present time, in the past and in the future.
The learners were not allowed to use dictionaries or ask any clarifications from their teachers or researchers but the instructions of the task were given in their L1. For analysing the data, there were different instruments used such as those of Long (1991) with examples and descriptions of the measures, those of Polio (1997) on measures of linguistic accuracy and those of Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998) on more than 100 measures to analyse written competence.
The results of this project show that, as far as writing is concerned, it is the older learners who outperform the younger learners both in the short and mid-term comparisons (Celaya and Navés 2009: 137-143). Additionally, in the long-run, the older learners wrote better compositions than the younger ones. More specifically, in
the short and mid-term comparisons, the older learners were better than the younger ones in fluency, accuracy, lexical and syntactic complexity. However, at some point, the younger learners caught up with the older ones in fluency and accuracy. The fact that the older learners, generally, outperform the younger ones has been attributed to the cognitive maturity of the first ones. In order to check this factor of maturity at a deeper level, this project also examined the compositions of learners at the same age but with different starting ages. The results show that the older learners still
outperform the younger ones especially as far as syntactic complexity is concerned, whereas the younger learners are better at fluency and lexical complexity. This ability of the younger learners has been attributed to the high number of hours of instruction and their young age. In general, it is apparent that the cognitive maturity and the explicit instruction favour the older learners at the expense of the younger ones who benefit more from exposure to real language that does not take place in English classrooms.
As far as the cross-linguistic influence is concerned, the results show that age seems to have an effect on the types of lexical transfer that were analysed and on the L2 proficiency (Celaya and Navés 2009: 144-147). However, language dominance seems to have no effect at all. The results show that both younger learners and adults tend to borrow words from the L1 with the children borrowing words more frequently.
Furthermore, the use of nonstandard words due to L1 influence declines as the learners become older and, in general, L1 influence, proficiency and age affect each other in different ways depending on the type of lexical transfer.
Concerning the results of the measurement of the learners’ writings, it is clear that the older learners outperform the younger ones in all the four domains of accuracy, fluency, syntactic and lexical complexity. In particular, the older learners are better at accuracy, lexical and syntactical complexity, whereas the younger ones are better at fluency.
To sum up, this BAF project concludes with a surprising result as far as English writing is concerned. The older the learner, the better writing development he/she shows. This appears to be true in all four domains of accuracy, fluency, lexical and syntactic complexity. Moreover, the age plays a role in the L1 lexical transfer with children practicing borrowing more than adults. These results seem to come in
contrast with the popular belief that younger learners learn English much better than older ones. However, no single study can produce definite results.
The next section focuses on the different genres and text types which can be produced by learners in the L2 writing.
2.5 Written text types/genres in L2 writing
There is a wide variety of different genres that learners can produce in their writings such as a sales letter, an essay, a notice, an advertisement, a biography, a report, a note, an argument, a novel, an article and a film review (Hyland 2003: 19). In addition, there are also some text genres that are not so familiar to learners and thus, not so common in L2 writing. These include an inventory, a warrant, a menu, a joke, a manifesto, a ticket, a prescription, an anecdote, a toast, a sermon, a lecture, a
telegram, a label, a consultation, a manual, an editorial, a poem, chat, a song, a jingle, a will, a sign, a memo, a seminar and a conversation. However, all these text genres have similarities and differences among them no matter whether they are traditional or not (Hyland 2003: 19). They can be different or similar in a variety of ways. For example, some of these genres can be written and others can also be spoken (Hyland 2003: 19). Moreover, certain genres can be targeted at specific audiences whereas others may be targeted at different ones. The genres may also serve different purposes and they may have different levels of formality, vocabulary and main grammar
patterns (Hyland 2003: 19). For example, an essay can mainly be written whereas a joke can be spoken as well. An anecdote and a joke serve the same purpose, that of entertainment, whereas an essay and a report are more informative in their purpose.
Another list of text types that can be produced by learners in L2 writing can include a note, a formal letter, a summary, a narrative or a story, a description, an
argumentative essay or letter, a literary text such as a novel, an advertisement or a journal article (Nation 2008: 116). It is apparent that these text genres share
similarities and differences just like Hyland’s list. They serve different purposes and different audiences. Furthermore, some of these genres are only written and some can be both written and spoken. Their vocabulary and grammatical structure can also be different or similar. For instance, a story or narrative can be written but spoken as well. In contrast, a journal article can have mainly a written form. Another difference among the written genres can focus on the grammatical and/or vocabulary structure.
An argumentative essay will have very different structural organisation from an advertisement. These two text types will use very different grammar and vocabulary to achieve their purposes.
To conclude, what can be drawn from the above mentioned discussion is that there are different types or genres of written texts in L2 writing. These text types share
similarities and differences as far as grammar and vocabulary are concerned and also in terms of audience and purpose of writing. Additionally, some genres can only be written whereas others can also be spoken. Depending on all these factors, learners can decide what kind of text they wish to produce.
What is going to follow focuses on the social and cultural aspects of writing and how learners’ culture can influence their own way of writing in the L2. Moreover, there will be some emphasis on the misunderstandings between the writer and the reader due to their different cultures and expectations.
2.6 Social and cultural aspects of writing
The writing process is traditionally viewed as the result of thought and cognition on the part of the learner (Weigle 2002: 19). Based on this belief, teachers’ feedback to writing focuses mainly on those cognitive aspects of writing such as grammar and vocabulary. However, writing is not the product of the learner only, but rather it carries social and cultural aspects of its writer (Weigle 2002: 19). In other words, writing happens within a context, it has a certain purpose and it serves a specific audience (Hamp-Lyons and Kroll 1997, as quoted by Weigle 2002: 19). In addition, writing is meaningful and it is socially and culturally shaped and purposeful (Sperling 1996, as quoted by Weigle 2002: 19).
In other words, the learner’s culture defines his/her background understandings and schema knowledge (Hyland 2003: 36). Moreover, it affects the learner’s way of writing, his/her answers in the classroom context and his/her writing performance.
The culture shapes the learner’s writing for two reasons (Hyland 2003: 36). First, the learner’s cultural beliefs and values are transferred and shown in the language he/she uses. Second, the learner’s culture gives him/her a predetermined way of organising ideas and expectations in general and in writing in particular.
There is also emphasis on the social and cultural aspects of academic writing in L2 and mainly in English (Weigle 2002: 19). Academic writing does not include only grammar and vocabulary or rhetorical forms that are frequently used (Weigle 2002:
20). For each discipline, the learner needs to know what issues are important to it, which specific methods of search are preferred and stressed and why others are not suitable for the particular discipline and how the rules of a discipline shape the
learner’s writing (Spack 1988, as quoted by Weigle 2002: 20). It can also expect from the learner to represent himself/herself in a text and demonstrate how a text influences subsequent texts (Spack 1988, as quoted by Weigle 2002: 20). Therefore, it is
apparent that academic writing is much more than just grammar and vocabulary. The learner needs to take into consideration the social and cultural aspects of writing, that is, the context in which he/she writes.
A very important notion related to the cultural and social aspects of writing is
contrastive rhetoric introduced by Kaplan in 1966 (Kaplan 1966, as quoted by Weigle 2002: 20). Contrastive rhetoric holds the idea that different cultures create different expectations on the part of people about the manner texts should be organised and written and the effects they can have on L2 writing (Hyland 2003: 45). In other words, what can be considered well-organised or coherent in writing in a culture can differ from one culture to another. These cultural differences can provoke
misunderstandings in the communication among learners and teachers.
As it has already been mentioned, the notion of contrastive rhetoric was introduced by Kaplan in 1966 when he studied 600 L2 writings from learners who had very different cultural and social backgrounds (Kaplan 1966, as quoted by Hyland 2003: 46). This study shows that learners who come from different cultural backgrounds
systematically differ in the way they develop and write their ideas. One notable difference is between English and Arabic development of paragraphs. Although English writing is linear, Arabic writing seems to be based on a series of parallel coordinate clauses. The study concludes that “oriental” writers come to the point only at the end of the writing using first an indirect approach. Additionally, the results of the study demonstrate a difference between English writing and French, Spanish and Russian writing. In the case of the French, Spanish and Russian writing there is a lot of extra material, a characteristic which does not exist in English writing. Because of these cultural differences, teachers were urged to provide learners with explicit
models of writing English paragraphs because they felt that the culture interfered negatively with L2 writing (Hyland 2003: 46).
However, Kaplan’s study has been criticised widely (Hyland 2003: 46-47). First, it puts all the different language groups together such as all the Asians as the “oriental”
writers. Second, it is too prescriptive in describing the “right” English way of writing.
Third, it is too ethnocentric in describing English writing as linear. Despite all this criticism, the notion of contrastive rhetoric has gained respect since an increasing number of researchers acknowledge that writing is influenced by culture (Weigle 2002: 20).
Another issue relevant to contrastive rhetoric is miscommunication that arises among learners and teachers when there are differences in expectations, strategies and beliefs about writing (Hyland 2003: 36). This is why teachers should try and understand the varied ways that L2 learners may respond to their teaching. This miscommunication can also influence the coherence of texts, that is, the organisation of texts into a meaningful whole (Weigle 2002: 21). Coherence is not a taken-for-granted trait of a piece of writing but it results from the writer’s precise assessment of what the reader will manage to understand from the text (Leki 1992, as quoted by Weigle 2002: 21).
In other words, the readers have certain expectations of the text they read but the writer’s intended message may be different if he/she has not taken into consideration the readers’ expectations (Carrel and Eisterhold 1983, as quoted by Weigle 2002: 21).
For example, it has already been mentioned that English writing is linear and that the ideas are hierarchically and clearly organised. This implies that the writer is the person who guides the reader throughout the whole text so that the reader does not need to draw conclusions on his/her own. In a culture where the reader is responsible for text comprehension, the writer can leave many ideas implicit so that the reader can infer his/her own conclusions (Weigle 2002: 21-22). If the needs of both the writer and the reader match, then there is no miscommunication. If, on the other hand, the writer and the reader share different cultures, there is the risk of cultural
miscommunication (Weigle 2002: 21-22).
What should not be taken for granted is that all L2 learners are not the same and that culture is not the same all the time, that is, static (Hyland 2003: 37). Culture is dynamic, it changes and evolves and people may resist to their culture or ignore it.
Furthermore, learners have their own individual identities beyond their culture and they may decide to alter their writing preferences away from it. In other words, there should not be any stereotypical attitude towards different cultures.
To conclude, L2 writing does not only have grammatical and lexical aspects but also social and cultural ones. It takes place in a context and it has a specific purpose and audience. These social and cultural aspects affect the learner’s writing. Learners who come from different cultures will inevitably construct writing based on their own beliefs as was apparent from Kaplan’s study. However, the contrastive rhetoric may lead to miscommunication problems especially if the writer and the reader do not share the same cultures in writing.
The next section focuses on a number of theories that are seen as curriculum options that can be used in the classroom. More specifically, each of these options is
organised around a different focus. The next section describes briefly these different foci in L2 writing.
2.7 Several foci on writing texts in L2 writing
One way to look at a written text is to consider it as marks on a paper or a systematic and coherent arrangement of words, clauses and sentences based on a system of rules (Hyland 2003: 3). This way of viewing L2 writing derives from the combination of structural linguistics and the behaviorist theory which were dominant in the 1960s (Silva 1990, as quoted by Hyland 2003: 3). Based on this theory, writing in L2 is seen as a product of the learner’s grammatical and lexical knowledge. Additionally, writing is the result of imitating models provided by the teacher. In other words, writing is the extension of grammar. Moreover, writing takes place through guided compositions such as gap-filling of short texts and meaning is the last thing to be dealt with (Hyland 2003: 4). Therefore, giving written feedback implies a focus on
correcting grammar and vocabulary errors (Hyland 2003: 4). However, the focus on language structures prevents the learners from developing real writing beyond a few sentences and from writing in other situations (Hyland 2003: 5). On the other hand, this does not imply that the focus on language structures should be abandoned (Hyland 2003: 5-6).
Another focus can be on text functions (Hyland 2003: 6-7). In other words, certain language forms have certain functions and learners can be taught those that they need.
Functions are the means for attaining the purposes of writing and they form the functional approach to L2 writing. The learners learn how to write effective paragraphs with the right topic and supporting sentences by using ready-made formulas and patterns. The text can be viewed as structural entities which have an introduction, main body and conclusion and they also have patterns such as narration and description. In other words, writing is seen as an object independent of context or of the writer. It is clearly evident that this focus is influenced by the structural model as well.
Moreover, the focus of writing can be on the creative expression of the learner (Hyland 2003: 8-10). This means that the learner is the centre of the writing. In other words, he/she can include his/her opinion and voice in the text. Teachers encourage learners to be spontaneous and creative and express their personal experiences and discover themselves. Thus, writing is not taught but rather learnt and the teacher’s instruction is indirect. The teachers’ role is to leave space to the learner to make his/her own meanings by avoiding imposing their opinions or offering models.
Therefore, teachers actually respond to learners’ writings than correct all kinds of grammatical and lexical errors (Murray 1985, as quoted by Hyland 2003: 9). Last, expressivism emphasises the asocial view of the learner and this individualism may not be preferred by some learners (Hyland 2003: 9). In addition, it is difficult to evaluate good writing if everything is written from the learner’s point of view (Hyland 2003: 10).
Another focus of teaching writing can be on the writing process which highlights the learner’s central role in writing but it also recognises the teacher’s role in showing learners how to process writing (Hyland 2003:10-13). This focus is based on the belief that cognitive processes are involved in writing and that learners need to develop their planning skills. One model of writing processes is the planning-writing- reviewing model by Flower and Hayes which stresses the fact that writing is not a linear process but the stages of planning, drafting and revising can interact even before a text is produced. In other words, the learner can go back and forth in writing and revising a text. A second model is that of Bereiter and Scardamalia which
distinguishes the novice from the skilled writer. These models are known as
knowledge-telling and knowledge-transforming models and the first deals with the novice writer who plans less than an expert, revises less and has limited goals whereas the second describes the skilled writer who analyses problems and reflects on the task.
The teacher’s role is significant because he/she guides the learner through the writing process by helping him/her to brainstorm and to make him/her aware of the writing processes and by giving extensive feedback in any form. The feedback at this stage is very crucial because it motivates learners to reflect on their writing. However, despite these models of writing processes, we cannot have a clear opinion on what takes place in a learner’s mind when writing.
The fifth focus of teaching writing can be on content, that is, what learners write about (Hyland 2003: 14-17). The content refers to the topics or themes of interest that create cohesion and coherence in a text or in a course. The learners have personal knowledge of the topics and thus, they can write about them. Content can refer to issues such as pollution, smoking and juvenile crime and the teacher’s role is to facilitate the learner to acquire cognitive schemata of the topics which will be needed to write a text such as brainstorming tasks and reading for ideas. Moreover, the teacher can help with data collection techniques. Last, focusing on content relies a lot on reading because it provides the learner with the knowledge he/she needs to activate schemata that are useful for writing.
The last focus is on the genre of a text which refers to writing as efforts to
communicate with the reader (Hyland 2003: 18-20). The teacher tries to show the learner how to follow certain social conventions in writing so that the reader can understand the learner’s purpose. These social conventions are the genres in writing.
In other words, the genre orientation combines discourse and aspects of language use.
The teacher’s role is also to provide the learner with explicit linguistic choices so that the texts produced appear to be appropriate to the reader. Moreover, the teacher can help the learner to distinguish among the different genres. The genre approach is drawn on the theory of systemic functional linguistics which stresses the relation between language and its social functions and the manner in which writers make choices to convey meanings.
To sum up, teaching writing can focus on many aspects of language such as language structures, text functions, creative expression, writing process, content and genre.
Depending on the teacher’s methodology, there can be a combination of these foci. In general, all these foci enable teachers to improve their writing instruction and to improve their learners’ L2 writing.
The next chapter focuses on L2 written feedback as it is provided by teachers to learners.
3 WRITTEN FEEDBACK IN L2 CLASSROOMS
This chapter describes different issues regarding L2 written feedback. Some of these issues are related to its effectiveness, to definitions of writing and feedback, to forms of teachers’ written feedback, to mitigation strategies that teachers may use when giving feedback, to some theoretical approaches that affect the way of giving feedback and to the issue of positive and negative feedback. Furthermore, there are issues such as factors that can make feedback effective and the focus of teachers’
written feedback.
3.1 The effectiveness of L2 written feedback
Feedback is the main characteristic of formative assessment in the classroom (Clarke 2003: 3). However, it is this characteristic that is burdened with most of the worst practices and false views about its effectiveness. In many cases, feedback has been used by teachers in order to compare a learner’s performance to another one’s, thus leading the less able to a humiliating and demoralising position and the more able to a superior position. Additionally, feedback focuses mainly on certain features that can make learners lose their self-confidence and motivation for learning. On top of all these problems, the parents’ expectations for a high-level performance, or even for an excellent one, aggravate the learner’s acceptance of feedback.
There have also been numerous studies questioning the effectiveness of the teacher’s written feedback as a way to improve learners’ writing (Hyland 2003: 178). The suggestion of many of these studies is that most of the written feedback is of poor quality and it is not understood by the learners because it is either too vague or inconsistent (Sommers 1982, as quoted by Hyland 2003: 178). The feedback tends to focus on form ignoring the content and sometimes it gets too directive not permitting
the learners to develop their own texts and thoughts. In general, many researchers wonder if the teacher’s feedback is effective, if the learners understand it, if they are going to use it in order to improve their writing and if they ever read it (Burke 2010:
11-12). Despite the fact that such questions do not have a definite answer, researchers persist in finding answers to them because they believe that feedback is important. It is this belief that makes them search for answers to what is most effective in feedback and to what works best in giving feedback.
Despite all these negative opinions on feedback and the negative conclusions of several studies about its effectiveness, giving feedback is considered one of the teachers’ most important tasks in the L2 classroom because offering individual attention and feedback is otherwise difficult to happen under normal classroom situations (Hyland 2003: 177). Furthermore, when a learner composes a text, he/she wants it to be read by others in order to see their responses, get some kind of feedback and learn from it (Hyland 2003: 177). This feedback is critical in improving learning because it enables the improvement of the learner’s writing. As a result, feedback highlights the process of writing and rewriting a text when it is not well-developed (Hyland 2003: 177). What is more, the kind of feedback and the feedback practices vary a lot among teachers depending on their preferences, on the writing task in question and on the effect they wish to achieve (Hyland 2003: 177). Despite the emphasis on the significance of the oral feedback and the peer feedback as sources of feedback, the teachers’ written feedback continues playing the most important role in L2 classrooms (Hyland 2003: 178). Both teachers and learners share this same view.
On the one hand, teachers feel that they are not fair towards learners’ efforts unless they write some comments on their texts justifying the grade they give. On the other hand, many learners see the teachers’ feedback as indispensable for their learning progress and their improvement as writers. An issue concerning feedback is also its source and the forms it can take (Hyland 2003: 177). This study focuses only on teachers’ written feedback and not on peer feedback.
To sum up, despite the negative beliefs that exist about teachers’ written feedback and the potential problems that it may cause to learners such as reluctance to learn and lack of motivation, feedback is regarded as one of the most important tasks that a teacher has to fulfill in the L2 classroom. Both teachers and learners agree on its
necessity. Teachers feel that they reward learners’ efforts and learners want to improve their writing ability through feedback.
The next section focuses on three definitions of writing and four definitions of feedback that describe the two concepts from different perspectives.
3.2 Definitions of writing and feedback
One definition of writing is that writing is seen as an opportunity to write something about yourself, to express or explore ideas about something and to evaluate other people's opinions (Trimmer 1998: 2). Therefore, by organising ideas and writing them in order to present them makes writing a good opportunity for communication.
Moreover, a second definition of writing is that writing is described as a process that includes certain stages such as planning, drafting and revising (Trimmer 1998: 5). In other words, writers go through stages in order to produce essays which proves that writing is a process (Brannan 2010: 4).
Additionally, a third definition of writing refers to writing as a process of creating permanent texts (Pontecorvo 1997: xv). The permanence of texts means that anybody can read them even if the intended audience was different in the beginning (Hughes 1996: 12).
All the above definitions of writing describe writing from three different perspectives.
The first definition describes writing from a general point of view which, however, is true. In other words, writing is an opportunity for communicating ideas with others.
The second definition describes writing from a practical point of view. According to the definition, writing is a realistic process that includes planning, drafting and revising. The last definition refers to the permanence of writing. This is also a true characteristic of writing. Texts are more permanent than speech.
One definition of feedback is that feedback is given by a teacher to a student and is related to student work (Brookhart 2008: 1). In other words, the teacher’s feedback should focus on the work that a student has done. Feedback can be either written or oral and it can take different forms according to the audience that it appeals to (Brookhart 2008: 2). Therefore, it can take the form of individual or group feedback
(Brookhart 2008: 2). Feedback is also claimed to be the teacher’s judgment about the school performance of a student (Askew 2000: 6).
A second definition of feedback refers to the “judgment culture associated with summative assessment” (Irons 2008, as quoted by Burke 2010: 27). This culture has developed because most assignments in school tend to be summative focusing on grades to signal the end of the learning process (Burke 2010: 26-27). Thus, in these cases, feedback is used to justify the grade. Grading is so important and it causes so much anxiety to teachers that they want it to be done as soon as possible taking on the responsibility to read learners’ assignments as a process of grading (Burke 2010: 26).
In other words, teachers give feedback as evaluators, judges or critics who criticise and correct a lot.
A third definition of feedback refers to the way people use this term (Burke 2010: 27).
This implies that feedback is used in a casual and inaccurate way (Wiggins 1997, as quoted by Burke 2010: 27). Smiling at a learner saying “good job” or “well-done” or writing “B” on the top of a paper is not feedback (Wiggins 1997, as quoted by Burke 2010: 27). Rather, feedback is useful information about performance and it is not evaluation. In other words, feedback is value-neutral help on worthy tasks and it describes what the learner did or did not do to achieve his/her goals. Moreover, it is information that permits the learner to make clever adjustments when he/she uses it to his/her next attempt to perform. According to this definition, feedback should help learning by focusing on what to do in order to improve and ways to improve it and not focusing on evaluation. Furthermore, in this definition of feedback, a distinction is made between advisory and evaluative feedback.
On the one hand, evaluative feedback looks backwards and it gives a grade or rating of a paper that was written in the past and captures the teacher’s perception of the learner’s performance (Burke 2010: 27). This kind of feedback is mainly given so that the learner can clearly understand what the grade is for an assignment he/she has already written in the past. In other words, the grade functions as a reward or punishment for a learner’s performance.
On the other hand, advisory feedback provides learners with guidance about how to improve their performance in the future and that is why this feedback is forward- looking (Burke 2010: 27). It aims at providing learners with information about their
performance on a certain assignment, at showing which parts of the performance need to be improved and at telling the learner what steps to take in order to improve his/her performance and thus, learning (Burke 2010: 27).
A fourth definition of feedback describes feedback as response between the teacher and learners that has to be interactive (Andrade and Evans 2013: 9). This means that when feedback is seen as response, then learners perceive teachers’ comments as suggestions rather than commands or raw feedback. This also leads to the assumption that this interactive feedback is non-judgmental, thus, it allows the opportunity for dialogue between the teacher and learners and the possibility for negotiations of errors in writing.
A way for this kind of feedback as response is by having learners evaluate their own writing and then discuss these evaluations (Grabe and Kaplan 1996: 389). Then, this discussion can help the teacher to organise mini-lessons on the errors and the
problems that learners face. In this way, the feedback can be given as a response to learners’ needs and interests and it is not just a decontextualised lesson. Therefore, good feedback as response is similar to the peer group feedback since the teacher raises a number of questions to learners so that learners can make revisions before they submit their writing back to the teacher (Grabe and Kaplan 1996: 394). In other words, learners are asked to comment on their errors and this functions as self- evaluation that shows the teacher where learners face difficulties and what he/she should do next.
It is apparent that all four definitions view feedback from different perspectives. The first definition is quite general referring to feedback as something that is given by the teacher to the learner and concerns his/her work. The only clarification made is that of oral or written and individual or group feedback. In general, one can claim that there is nothing wrong with this definition and that it applies to most feedback given by teachers.
However, the second and third definitions seem quite conflicting. The second definition relates feedback to grades and summative assessment and one can claim that through this definition feedback acquires a negative meaning. In other words, getting a low grade is equal to punishment and learning does not have any role in this kind of feedback. This view of feedback seems quite narrow-minded although it is
practiced by numerous teachers. However, the main problem is that it does not promote learning.
The third definition seems to be the most balanced and useful for the learner since it promotes learning without focusing on evaluation and grading. In other words, it shows the learner what is wrong in his/her writing without overcriticising and overwhelming the learner. Furthermore, it helps him/her to find ways in order to improve his/her writing for the next assignment. Generally, this kind of feedback is preferred because it allows the learner to see his/her errors and try to correct them with the teacher’s feedback. In other words, this feedback is more learner-centred since it places the responsibility of learning on the learners. Additionally, in contrast to the second definition, here feedback has a positive meaning. It is not something that learners should be afraid of.
The fourth definition views the teacher’s feedback from a more social point of view and pays attention to the role of the learner as well. Feedback, even written, appears to be more interactive and stops being judgmental and absolutely strict with no margins for discussion or negotiation just like the first or second definitions where the teacher is the authority and either just corrects or gives marks that may discourage learners. In contrast, in the more social aspect of feedback, it is learners who try to figure out their errors showing the teacher where to focus his/her feedback on. This can be a much more positive experience for learners since they feel responsible for their own
learning and they are not afraid of the teacher’s feedback. In other words, feedback is not punishment in the form of a mark, rather it is a real effort for learning.
The following section explains the various forms that the teacher’s feedback can take such as giving commentaries or electronic feedback.
3.3 Forms of teacher’s written feedback
There has been a variety of methods proposed to provide learners with teacher’s feedback (Hyland 2003: 180). The most commonly used methods include
commentary, rubrics, minimal marking, taped comments and electronic feedback.
Starting with the most common method of feedback, commentaries are the teacher’s handwritten comments on the learner’s text. This kind of feedback is seen more as a response to the learner’s writing than as evaluation of what is written by the learner. A
teacher’s commentary can include statements concerning how the text appears to the readers, how successful it is and how it can be further improved. These statements, or else commentary, can take the form of marginal or end comments. On the one hand, the marginal comments are immediate, direct and proximate and they appear next to the exact point in the text where the error occurs. This implies that the marginal comments are relevant to the text and they are more effective than an end commentary since they make the learner understand exactly where they refer to (Hyland 2008:
181). On the other hand, the end commentary permits the teacher to write general comments and observations and it allows more space for him/her to summarise and prioritise key points.
Another method of providing written feedback is by using rubrics (Hyland 2003:
181). The rubrics are a variation on commentary and state explicitly the criteria that have been used to assess the learners’ writing and to assess how well the learner has performed in relation to these criteria. The rubrics usually accompany the teacher’s handwritten commentary and they can vary depending on the type of the learner’s writing. Moreover, they may restrict the range of errors that can be corrected but they are helpful in making grading decisions and showing the criteria that a teacher uses for evaluating a specific piece of writing.
The next method of giving feedback refers to minimal marking (Hyland 2003: 181).
Minimal marking is a kind of in-text, form-based feedback which permits the teacher to show the place and the kind of error without any explicit correction (Bates et al.
1993, Ferris 1997, as quoted by Hyland 2003: 181). This method of feedback is more effective in helping the learner develop self-editing strategies than direct feedback (Hyland 2003: 181). One way of achieving this is by using correction codes which make the feedback clearer, more organised and less threatening to the learner than the red ink. Furthermore, these correction codes help learners to find and recognise the error. Examples of correction codes are shown in the table below:
S Incorrect spelling P Punctuation is wrong W Wrong word order [ ] Something is not necessary T Wrong tense
WF Wrong form
(Adapted from Hyland 2003: 181)
However, the disadvantage of minimal marking is that all the errors cannot be easily categorised, especially when they extend beyond the sentence level.
Despite the possibility of using correction codes, minimal marking should provide learners with even less information as no underlining or symbols should be provided by the teacher (Hyland 2003: 182). Surface errors should just be marked with a cross in the margin next to the line of the error. In this way, learners should try to identify and correct the error themselves. The simplicity of the minimal marking grants more time for making substantive comments and it helps in the creation of peer discussion so that learners can find the error and write it correctly. However, it does not correct any rhetorical or communicative problems.
Yet, another form of teacher’s written feedback is taped commentary (Hyland 2003:
182). It is an alternative to marginal commentary where the feedback is tape recorded and numbers are written on the learner’s paper to indicate where the comments refer to (Hyland 1990, as quoted by Hyland 2003: 182). This form of feedback saves time, offers novelty and provides listening practice to learners who prefer the auditory style of learning. Moreover, it shows the learner how a reader understands the structure of the writing, where this structure breaks down, when confusion arises and where ideas get across (Hyland 2003: 182).
The last most common form of teacher’s written feedback is electronic feedback (Hyland 2003: 183). Computers and new technology create new opportunities for giving written feedback and an increasing number of teachers start considering this as a new way of responding to learners’ writing. The feedback can be sent by e-mail or by using the comment function which opens a new window for comments along with the text to be read. Using computers, teachers can also link online explanations of
grammar or authentic texts with the learners’ errors to show them how the errors can be corrected. In other words, computers offer flexibility to the teachers’ feedback practices.
To sum up, there are many different forms of written feedback a teacher can provide such as the written and recorded commentary, the rubrics, the minimal marking and the electronic feedback. Some of these forms are more traditional and thus,
widespread among teachers and some are more modern, new and innovative.
However, all these forms of written feedback have advantages and disadvantages and it depends on the teacher’s preference and convenience what form he/she is going to use taking learning always into consideration.
The next section addresses the topic of mitigation strategies as they are used by teachers. These strategies refer to the impact that teachers’ feedback can have on the learner and they allow the teacher to make his/her feedback milder.
3.4 Mitigation strategies
The way that teachers offer written feedback demonstrates also their concern about the interpersonal impact of positive and negative feedback (Hyland 2003: 190). This concern is important because the teacher’s feedback also entails delicate social interactions which can influence the relationship and interaction between the teacher and learners. Learners may feel unsafe about their writing achievements and thus, they can be encouraged by positive feedback and discouraged by negative one (Hyland 2003: 190). One way to avoid negative situations that can be created when criticism appears is when teachers decide to soften the force of their feedback using several mitigation strategies (Hyland and Hyland 2001, as quoted by Hyland 2003:
191). These include paired comments where there is the combination of negative feedback with positive feedback or a suggestion, hedged comments where the teacher uses certain modals verbs and imprecise quantifiers to soften his/her feedback,
personal attribution where the teacher responds to the learner’s writing as a common reader and not as an authority and the use of interrogative form to express doubt and uncertainty about what is written.
The mitigation strategies also enable the teacher to moderate his/her dominant and authoritative role and lower what seems overdirective and intervening feedback
